Fulfillment of Prophecy in the New Testament

[Brian2]

And this is where you got led astray, believing that Jesus had a physical body that was incorruptible so you will also have a body like that. There is no such thing as a physical body that is incorruptible because flesh by its very nature decomposes and perishes. That is why the body of Jesus did not rise from the grave after the decomposition process set in, because that is impossible. Any sightings of Jesus would have been His spiritual body which He could make appear physical since Jesus could perform miracles. So the doubting Thomas verses are easily explainable, if the resurrection stories are even true at all.

That is a problem I have with Baha'i. There is no idea that God tells us the truth in the scriptures. God lied to the disciples and deceived them into thinking that Jesus had risen bodily and it is fine by Baha'i to have a God who does that.
John 2:19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” 20 They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said.
Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

And Jesus was not speaking of the body of Christ (the church) which was not in existence when Jesus died.

Matt 28: 5 But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6He is not here; He has risen, just as He said! Come, see the place where He lay.

Luke 24:37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

It does not matter what Baha'u'llah has written about anything. He is not the return of Jesus and as such his words are not important to anyone except a Baha'i.
OTOH what the Bible tells us about false Christs and about the return of Jesus should matter to us all,,,,,,,and it should not be annulled by someone telling us that it does not really mean what it says........................And what does it say, in part. "The same Jesus that you saw go up to heaven will come back in the same way you saw Him go."
All you can do is say Baha'u'llah teaching and deny it and say that what you are doing is interpreting it a different way.

What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death

Many liberal and some mainline Christian leaders believe that Jesus died during the crucifixion, did not resurrect himself, and was not bodily resurrected by God. At his death, his mind ceased to function and his body started the decomposition process. Returning to life a day and a half later would have been quite impossible.

They like you are denying the power of God.

 

[Brian2]

But you can wait and hope, along with the other Christians who are till waiting, because that gives you something to look forward to even though you are waiting for nothing, because there is no reason to believe that Jesus is coming back to earth, and that can be easily demonstrated by reading the NT.

John 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.

Okay, try to show me that the following prophecy this is not true.
There are so many prophecies but Micah 7:12 is a good one.

Baha'i likes to use the KJV it seems and that is wrong in places. The more modern translations are more accurate in terms of their understanding of the ancient languages and having correct scriptures to translate from.

Micah 7:11 A day for the building of your walls!
In that day the boundary shall be far extended.
In that day they will come to you, from Assyria and the cities of Egypt,
and from Egypt to the River, from sea to sea and from mountain to mountain.
the earth will be desolate because of its inhabitants,
for the fruit of their deeds.
Shepherd your people with your staff,
the flock of your inheritance, who dwell alone in a forest
in the midst of fa garden land; let them graze in Bashan and Gilead
as in the days of old.

It is a prophecy about the return of God people to Israel.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Brian2]

The fact that it is not in the gospel message does not make in a corruption. What it shows is that Baha'u'llah was he Comforter that Jesus promised to send from the Father, because referring to Jesus as the Son of Man, Baha’u’llah glorified Jesus and testified of Jesus in His Writings, exactly as Jesus said the Comforter would do.

Baha'u'llah does more discrediting of Jesus that telling us what the Bible tells of Jesus.

Baha'u'llah never lowered the status of Jesus, He just came to complete the work Jesus started:

Calling the Son of God just another Messenger from God is lowering Jesus status.
Usurping Jesus work that He will complete on His return and closing down the gospel message for all people after 1844 is..................so despicable and is the work of a false Christ and of the one who wants to attack the work of God which He did and is doing in Jesus and take down as many people with him as possible....................imho.
If Baha'u'llah had done one thing to complete this work that would be at least something,,,,,,,,,,but he has not.

If Jesus was coming He would have been here by now, since all the signs He gave for the return of the Son of Man have come and gone.

Yes I know you want to believe that the gospel was preached to all the world by 1844 but in reality it has not even been preached to all the world by now.

 

[Brian2]

The OT does not apply those prophecies to Jesus, you apply them to Jesus, but they do not apply to Jesus since Jesus has not fulfilled them. Why can’t you understand that you cannot apply a prophecy to Jesus when Jesus has not fulfilled that prophecy?

I said that the NT applies prophecies to Jesus and Baha'u'llah/Baha'i says they are about Baha'u'llah. Eg that the one who sits on the throne of David forever is Baha'u'llah in Isa 9:6,7. That the one who is given a Kingdom that will not pass away and will rule forever (Dan 7:13,14) is Baha'u'llah. (see Luke 1:32 where it says it is Jesus who is the one who sits on the throne of David forever and that His Kingdom will not pass away).
That Baha'u'llah is the one spoken of in Isa 53 when the NT says it applies to Jesus. (see Acts 8:26-40)
That Baha'u'llah is the Branch from Jesse (Isa 11) which is Jesus in the NT (Romans 15:12 etc)
And no doubt there are others. And there are also things associated with these identities, things which these identities will do which Baha'u'llah wants for himself but which have also gone to Jesus in the NT because the NT identifies Jesus as the one prophesied about in those places.
I don't need to worry about prophecies that Jesus has not fulfilled yet because He has not come back yet to fulfil them. The Messiah died and rose again and is sitting at the right hand of God till all His enemies are placed under His feet. (Psalm 110 and applied to Jesus by Jesus (Matt 22:24) and others in the epistles and Acts etc) and will return to fulfil everything. It is Baha'i and you who should be worried about those prophecies that Jesus has not yet fulfilled because Baha'u'llah came and went and not one of them was fulfilled.

We have been over this before. That is not Jesus saying He will come back to earth to get the disciples he was speaking to and take them to where He is in heaven. It is Jesus saying He will come back in Spirit, as He did when He sent Baha’u’llah. The disciples are in heaven, not on earth, so Jesus cannot come and get them on earth.

John 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.
No, it is certainly Jesus who said that.
So with your interpretation you are denying that anyone could come back to get the disciples Jesus was speaking to. You are again denying the Bible,,,,,,,,,,,,,which is what Baha'is do. Jesus is returning to raise the dead and take His disciples with Him.

Go right ahead, find them and post them, and I will show you why the verses you try to apply to Jesus are not about Jesus.

Rev 1:5-8 To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
Rev 22:20 He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!
1Thess 3:12 And may the Lord cause you to increase and overflow with love for one another and for everyone else, just as our love for you overflows, 13 so that He may establish your hearts in blamelessness and holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints.
2Thess 1:7 and to grant relief to you who are oppressed and to us as well, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels
Matt 25:31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32And before him shall be gathered all nations:
Luke 9:22“The Son of Man must suffer many things,” He said. “He must be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and He must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.”
etc etc

 

[Brian2]

Baha'is believe that the new messenger brings new social laws. I've asked them what social did Jesus bring. Do see any teachings of Jesus that could be thought of as a new social law? Then, if so, that law was only good until Muhammad came with new laws.

The law of love for neighbour has been around at least since the Law of Moses.
Muhammad and The Bab seem to get left out of things even though they are also meant to be Manifestations of God. It is as if Muhammad is a lesser Manifestation. You are right, the dispensation of Jesus should have finished with the arrival of Mohammad, but the Prophecies they claim about the return of the Christ go to the time they say is Baha'u'llah (1844) and the other prophecies about the return of Jesus are analysed by Baha'i to have finished at that time also.
Yet as far as I know Mohammad and The Bab are as much the return of Jesus as Baha'u'llah is if it is the same Christ Spirit who was in them both.
I usually don't push that, but it is a good point.

 

[Brian2]

It means that there are hundreds of even thousands of years between Messengers of God, but there is usually not more than a thousand years between them.

It means that the people of earth are left without a Messenger for hundreds or even thousands of years.

Bahá'ís believe that God's prophets or messengers (whom they call manifestations of God) provide the most complete knowledge of God available at their particular time. The writings associated with these prophets are the means through which an individual can get a deeper knowledge of God. Sep 22, 2009

They should have added "as long as you understand the writings the way Baha'u'llah tells you to understand them".

 

[rosends]

It would be the same for all occurrences of the Greek word in the NT then I guess, and eternal life would not be eternal and the everlasting gospel would not really be everlasting.
I imagine the real problem stems from trying to translate the Hebrew into the Greek (not being a language scholar at all) and to find an equivalent word while not knowing whether the Hebrew meant 'eternal' or 'an indefinite length of time'.
Also it is possible that the Greek may not have a word that means 'for an indefinite length of time'.
Anyway at least you are admitting that the Hebrew word does not need to be mean "eternal" or equivalent.
I'll try to catch up on posts soon, I get behind sometimes, and then I catch up only to find that the next day everyone has replied and I am just as far behind.

It isn't that I'm "admitting" anything -- I was the one who brought that up. But it forces you to admit that it invalidates any claim to "eternal" in the Gospels as well. If you want to assert that the word means eternal as a matter of your belief and interpretation, then do that, but beware trying to point out that what I cite as eternal isn't without denying me the same right to belief and interpretation. If you want to learn a bit more, then I'll point out that "olam" in Hebrew DOES have the variety of meanings, but it is often found as part of a 2-word phrase which qualifies it as meaning "forever". Now you have to go back and check the Greek and see if, in the Gospels, that second word is there to invoke the "forever" meaning. If not, you have an even larger problem. Would you like to check or would you rather I did it?

 

[Brian2]

It isn't that I'm "admitting" anything -- I was the one who brought that up. But it forces you to admit that it invalidates any claim to "eternal" in the Gospels as well. If you want to assert that the word means eternal as a matter of your belief and interpretation, then do that, but beware trying to point out that what I cite as eternal isn't without denying me the same right to belief and interpretation. If you want to learn a bit more, then I'll point out that "olam" in Hebrew DOES have the variety of meanings, but it is often found as part of a 2-word phrase which qualifies it as meaning "forever". Now you have to go back and check the Greek and see if, in the Gospels, that second word is there to invoke the "forever" meaning. If not, you have an even larger problem. Would you like to check or would you rather I did it?

I don't think it invalidates any claim to "eternal" in the gospels as well. I looked up the Greek word and it means eternal and everlasting and usually into the future. (there is no 2nd word that qualifies it one way or another)
What I meant is that the LXX translators may have thought that the Hebrew word did mean "everlasting" when it may have actually meant "for an indefinite period".
But you have the right to believe as you want of course.
Does the Hebrew word have the 2nd word that qualifies the meaning to "forever" concerning the law.
The Torah is forever of course in my belief also but I guess I see the Torah (the Word of God) as also including the New Testament.
Interestingly Jesus as much says the same in the middle of the Sermon on the Mount, which some might say is a law for the Kingdom of God and the New Covenant and which steps up the demands of the Law of Moses, or at least the moral teachings in the 10 Commandments.
Matt 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfil them. 18 For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.…
Yet Jesus and the New Testament go on to say that Love is the fulfilling of the Law.
It can be an interesting dilemma for Christians to get their head around (as it was in the early church and is for Jews now).
The things might be that those in the New Covenant who break them and teach others also to do that are still seen by Jesus as being in the Kingdom of God. There is not a Law to keep for our righteousness, that is given by God through Jesus when we are associated and joined to Jesus through faith and His Spirit.

 

[Brian2]

You just don’t get it do you? Everything you read has to be interpreted as you read it so everything is an interpretation.
Baha’u’llah was the Spirit of Truth who brought the Holy Spirit. That is my interpretation.

The passages tell us that the Holy Spirit is the Paraclete and also is the Spirit of Truth and you say that the Spirit of Truth brings the Holy Spirit. Those 2 things contradict each other,,,,,,,,,,,,,,so your interpretation (which is no more than a claim by Baha'u'llah, contradicts the Bible)

You cannot have it that way. The Day of Pentecost was 2000 years ago so it cannot also be the last days because the last days were not 2000 years ago.

I can have it that way if that is what is taught in the New Testament. From the time of Jesus is the beginning of the last days. It does not matter how long it goes, it is an era.
Adam, the beginning of the first days was thousands of years before Jesus and the middle days were thousands of years in the middle.
If you want to say that the prophecy of Joel in Acts 2 should not be there to describe the events of Pentecost then that is just a denial of the New Testament teachings, for the sake of Baha'u'llah.

I do not deny the Holy Spirit was sent at Pentecost because the Bible says that, but the Bible does not say that the Spirit of Truth is the Holy Spirit that was given at Pentecost. There is no way the Bible says that, that is just YOUR interpretation.

The thing is that my interpretation is an interpretation. I say things like "This sentence says that and that means that this other sentence means that and that means that............." You cannot do that and all you can do is say "Baha'u'llah says he is the Spirit of Truth so that is what it means". It is not an interpretation, it is a claim only.
But to do it again.

I do not deny the Holy Spirit was sent at Pentecost because the Bible says that, but the Bible does not say that the Spirit of Truth is the Holy Spirit that was given at Pentecost. There is no way the Bible says that, that is just YOUR interpretation.

Here we go again.
John 14:15 “If you love me, keep my commands.16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.
John 14:26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you.
John 16:26 When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father— the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father— He will testify about Me.

The Holy Spirit is the Advocate and is the Spirit of Truth. The Spirit of Truth will be with and in the disciples Jesus was speaking with. The Advocate was to remind Jesus disciples what Jesus had told them. (no good reminding people who had not heard Jesus). The Holy Spirit came at Pentecost so the Advocate and the Spirit of Truth also came to be with and in the disciples and to remind them of Jesus words.
Nothing said there about the Spirit of Truth bringing the Holy Spirit.
Who is the Baha'u'llah in? right nobody, therefore he is not the Spirit of Truth.

Jesus does not promise to return to earth in the same body in that verse, that is just YOUR interpretation
And where is Jesus, did He get delayed in traffic? Maybe the clouds are too think for Him to get through.

No I was not trying to say that Jesus says He would return in the same body, I was just showing that Jesus said that He would return.
No I doubt that Jesus was delayed in traffic, He is probably just waiting for all the people who are going to, to come to Him.

I do not deny those verses. The Spirit of Jesus came back just as it left, from the heaven of the Will of God.

So does that (Acts 1:9-11) mean that Jesus who was in heaven as a spirit, left heaven and came back to earth as Baha'u'llah? OR does that mean that the Christ Spirit came while Jesus remained in heaven, to be with Baha'u'llah as the Christ Spirit in him? OR what does it mean exactly?

Jesus was to sit on the throne of David forever in heaven, but not in earth.

It does not really matter where the throne is or where it is moved to,,,,,,,,,,,,,it is Jesus who is sitting on it and is King.

No such thing is shown.

What, do you think that in Acts 8:26-40, when Philip heard the Ethiopian eunuch reading from Isa 53 that Philip started explaining about Baha'u'llah to him, a concept that is completely foreign to the NT and the OT?

 

[rosends]

I don't think it invalidates any claim to "eternal" in the gospels as well.

If you want to say that the word in Hebrew has more than one meaning, and the choice of "forever" is an interpretation, not a fact, then the same has to be said for the Gospel word used as a translation of that word.

Does the Hebrew word have the 2nd word that qualifies the meaning to "forever" concerning the law.

Yup -- you can look in Deut 12:28, or 29:28 if you want. The phrase is "ad olam".

Yet Jesus and the New Testament go on to say that Love is the fulfilling of the Law.

So you get around the need to "practice and teach" the law by saying that somehow love "fulfills" a law. Well, some of the laws -- others still have to be followed because they are moral and therefore, love doesn't fulfill them.

 

[Brian2]

If you want to say that the word in Hebrew has more than one meaning, and the choice of "forever" is an interpretation, not a fact, then the same has to be said for the Gospel word used as a translation of that word.

Not really, the New Testament Greek word does mean "forever" and the word in the LXX is forever but is it forever in the place we were speaking of.

Yup -- you can look in Deut 12:28, or 29:28 if you want. The phrase is "ad olam".

Those do not say that every precept is forever or that the law is forever. When I look around I see that there are only some laws that are said to be forever.

So you get around the need to "practice and teach" the law by saying that somehow love "fulfills" a law. Well, some of the laws -- others still have to be followed because they are moral and therefore, love doesn't fulfill them.

What ones are you referring to? A moral law sounds like love would cover it. I do see when I look around that the whole Word of God is forever however.

 

[rosends]

Not really, the New Testament Greek word does mean "forever" and the word in the LXX is forever but is it forever in the place we were speaking of.

So the Greek word means "forever" and was used in a place which couldn't possibly have meant "forever" because that would have introduced a textual contradiction.

Those do not say that every precept is forever or that the law is forever. When I look around I see that there are only some laws that are said to be forever.

One refers to ALL the commandments which I have commanded you. The other refers to "all the words in this Torah." (each uses the word "kol" which means all) How you can get from that "some" is beyond me.

What ones are you referring to? A moral law sounds like love would cover it. I do see when I look around that the whole Word of God is forever however.

So you are bound to keep laws of first fruits (which demonstrate love of God)? Is burying your waste fulfilled by love? What about divorce? Is that fulfilled by love? You see, the fact is, none of these laws were given to people not under the Mosaic covenant. The attempt to be grafted in but then to feel absolved of a chunk of Mosaic law is exactly the pick and choose which makes no sense.

 

[Brian2]

Do you have actual verses that say Moses and Adam sinned or is that just your interpretation of the verses?

Numbers 20:2-13 Moses lack of trust in God and hitting the rock twice instead of speaking to it was seen as sin by God and Moses was punished for it. (see also Deut 32:48-52)
God was also unhappy with Moses for not circumcision his son after Moses call at the burning bush.(Ex 4:24-26) He was also angry at Moses when Moses did not want to go to Pharaoh and God had to send Aaron along with him.(Ex 4:14)
Adam sinned when he ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil when God had told him not to. For this he was sentenced to death and kicked out of Eden etc.

Every Messenger of God makes sacrifices.

Only the Messiah, an Israelite from the tribe of Judah and with other qualifications and ordained and sent by God could do the work necessary to obtain forgiveness and bring salvation to both Jews and Gentiles.

I avail myself if a lot of words from previous Messengers if they convey eternal spiritual truths.

You should avail yourself of the eternal covenant words of Jesus and believe them.

All of them apply to Baha’u’llah.

Baha'u'llah was not made a sin offering (a blood sacrifice of an animal according to the Law of Moses, for covering of sin, and which pointed to the sacrifice that was the perfect one which brought forgiveness and took away sin guilt forever) and did not pour out his life unto death. Baha'u'llah died of a fever.

Then would mean Jesus died and He is no longer living so He cannot return from heaven.

You must be thinking of Baha'u'llah. Jesus was given as a sin offering and died but then lived on to see children. Baha'u'llah just lived to see his children.
Isa 53 is about Jesus.

Nice try but if Jesus was buried He would be in His grave, not resurrected.

The reason He was not in His grave is because He rose bodily,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but you deny that bit of the story.

I never claimed that verse 45 is about them.

Ps 89:28 speaks of God's Covenant with the one who calls him his father, the one who is made higher than the kings of the earth.
Verse 38 on is about the Jews rejecting their anointed and king (the one who is higher than the kings of the earth) and going on to kill him.(verse 45)
Then the Psalm writer wants to know how long the Lord will be angry with them.
Basically verse 45 is about the son who is made higher than the kings of the earth by God. An anoined king with a covenant with God whom is rejected and killed by his people with whom God then gets angry and spurns.
Verse 45 is about that same king (the one who is higher than the kings of the earth)

 

[CG Didymus]

Luke 24:37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

I'm sure this is just a generalization...

"In Liberal Christianity, the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus are explained as visionary experiences."​

You see it was a "vision". A vision is not a ghost, but can appear to be real. So real that when you think you're touching you're really not, you just think you are... I guess?

​

This is from Abdul Baha...

Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ’s resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.
Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection. But as the clergy have neither understood the meaning of the Gospels nor comprehended the symbols, therefore, it has been said that religion is in contradiction to science, and science in opposition to religion, as, for example, this subject of the ascension of Christ with an elemental body to the visible heaven is contrary to the science of mathematics. But when the truth of this subject becomes clear, and the symbol is explained, science in no way contradicts it; but, on the contrary, science and the intelligence affirm it.
​

So sorry, but I guess because modern science says resurrection is impossible, even for God. It could not have happened. Poor God, when he was young he could do anything. Not anymore, it's kind of sad. Which means Christians that believe in the resurrection are to be pitied. They got it wrong. There is no resurrection. As Abdul Baha' says, "the clergy have neither understood the meaning of the Gospels nor comprehended the symbols..." And poor clergy too, they stupidly thought the Bible could be taken literally, and that it was the Truth from God. It's not. Not if if doesn't agree with science.

 

[CG Didymus]

Baha'i likes to use the KJV it seems and that is wrong in places. The more modern translations are more accurate in terms of their understanding of the ancient languages and having correct scriptures to translate from.

Micah 7:11 A day for the building of your walls!
In that day the boundary shall be far extended.
In that day they will come to you, from Assyria and the cities of Egypt,
and from Egypt to the River, from sea to sea and from mountain to mountain.
the earth will be desolate because of its inhabitants,
for the fruit of their deeds.
Shepherd your people with your staff,
the flock of your inheritance, who dwell alone in a forest
in the midst of fa garden land; let them graze in Bashan and Gilead
as in the days of old.

It is a prophecy about the return of God people to Israel.

Big difference between "he" will come to you and "they" will come to you. Also, to make it about Baha'u'llah they have to make Teheran within the Assyria Empire. I looked at the maps, and it might be short of that part of Persia. It looks like it stops at the Zagros mountains. But, if it is the return of the exiles and captives, then that's a bigger issue. Again, it is taking some verses out of context to make them a fulfilled prophecy. What is the text saying?

Yes I know you want to believe that the gospel was preached to all the world by 1844 but in reality it has not even been preached to all the world by now.

Wars and rumors of wars are still going on, so that's not fulfilled. The thing I keep asking is that when Jesus, or the "Lamb", comes back in Revelation, do the tribulations continue? I've also asked them about the "Lamb". That is who returns. The best guesses I've gotten from Baha'is is the "Lamb that was slain" was The Bab. But Baha'u'llah is the main guy. He should be the "Lamb". But everything in Revelation makes it sound like Jesus is the Lamb. Too many things left up in the air and not answered by Baha'u'llah or Abdul Baha.

They should have added "as long as you understand the writings the way Baha'u'llah tells you to understand them".

Yes, everything in every religion fits perfectly if you only believe what Baha'u'llah has said it means. And that does have a lot of appeal. Who, except believers in those other religions, thinks those ancients Scriptures are true? The Baha'i explanation eliminates them. "They were symbolic." "They were misinterpreted." "The clergy added traditions of man into them." And the greatest one of all... "They are no longer relevant. They were the truth for their time." Like Christianity, it's been irrelevant sine 621AD. It's had it spring, summer and fall and is long since been in its winter time.

 

[CG Didymus]

No I doubt that Jesus was delayed in traffic, He is probably just waiting for all the people who are going to, to come to Him.

To think that all the horrible things talked about in Revelation already happened more then 150 years ago. It doesn't seem like it. It looks very much like we are heading for global disaster now. Christians say, "yes" that is when Jesus is coming back. Baha'is say, "Yes, Baha'u'llah's message was rejected, so now the world is going to go through some terrible things. At some point they will realized that the Baha'i Faith is the truth and turn to the Baha'is to show them the way." But again, do the prophecies say that the Christ return and will be rejected again and die? And then the world plunged into more tribulations? I don't think it does, but I'm sure the Baha'is can come up verses that say exactly that. Maybe it's time that they show us those verses.

The reason He was not in His grave is because He rose bodily,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but you deny that bit of the story.

What? Let me see? People went to his tomb and he was not there. Where could he have gone? Did someone steal the body and then spread a rumor that he had risen? And then spread another rumor about having seen Jesus? Makes sense. But how did they pull it off without getting caught? Now that's a miracle.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What? Let me see? People went to his tomb and he was not there. Where could he have gone? Did someone steal the body and then spread a rumor that he had risen? And then spread another rumor about having seen Jesus? Makes sense. But how did they pull it off without getting caught? Now that's a miracle.

I'm not sure what happened, but I know that people don't literally rise from the dead after three days.

Stealing the body is a possibility.

But there is another possbility I think is more likely. I suspect Jesus was never buried in a crypt at all. The whole burial story is a legend added later, after the rumors of his resurrection had begun. He was probably buried in a pauper's grave and forgotten.

I say this for the following reason -- in the stories of the first sightings of Jesus, Jesus seems to be physically unrecognized. IOW, he could be someone other than Jesus, and then the person comes to believe that this other person is Jesus.

For example, the two followers on the road to Emmaus clearly thought they were talking to someone other than Jesus. It was only when bread was broken that they decided this stranger must be Jesus.

Even in the most compelling story, that of Thomas, at first when Jesus meets him, Thomas does not recognize him. It is only when Thomas sees marks of crucifixion that he decides it must be Jesus. And of course, that is just not necessarily true.

So you basically have people not really seeing Jesus, but inserting their desire to see a risen Jesus onto other people. This would account for the growth of the belief that J was risen from the dead.

 

[CG Didymus]

I'm not sure what happened, but I know that people don't literally rise from the dead after three days.

Stealing the body is a possibility.

But there is another possbility I think is more likely. I suspect Jesus was never buried in a crypt at all. The whole burial story is a legend added later, after the rumors of his resurrection had begun. He was probably buried in a pauper's grave and forgotten.

I say this for the following reason -- in the stories of the first sightings of Jesus, Jesus seems to be physically unrecognized. IOW, he could be someone other than Jesus, and then the person comes to believe that this other person is Jesus.

For example, the two followers on the road to Emmaus clearly thought they were talking to someone other than Jesus. It was only when bread was broken that they decided this stranger must be Jesus.

Even in the most compelling story, that of Thomas, at first when Jesus meets him, Thomas does not recognize him. It is only when Thomas sees marks of crucifixion that he decides it must be Jesus. And of course, that is just not necessarily true.

So you basically have people not really seeing Jesus, but inserting their desire to see a risen Jesus onto other people. This would account for the growth of the belief that J was risen from the dead.

I absolutely don't have a problem with the NT not being true. My problem is with the way Baha'is try to explain it away by make it "symbolic". If they don't believe Jesus rose from the dead fine. For me the easiest to believe theory is that it was all fictional. I don't know how literally you believe your Bible, but I'd say the same thing with some of the things in the Bible too. Did the seas part? I don't need them to. I can take it as a meaningful mythological story. But, I also believe a literal belief in the Bible stories are much more powerful. To think that God really did those things? To make them myth makes them... not so great. Same thing with Christians... a literal, physically risen Jesus... that's something... that's amazing. A vision or a symbolic story... big deal. A hoax... that's a big deal... but not in a good way.

But while you're here. The belief in a physical resurrection supposedly came from Judaism... is there anything you could comment about that? As usual, I expect something way different than what I've been taught by Christians, but don't worry about that... I'm always interested in yours and other Jews thoughts about these things..... Which reminds me.. Wow, has this thread changed. It was all about what Jews thought.

 

[Brian2]

For example, the two followers on the road to Emmaus clearly thought they were talking to someone other than Jesus. It was only when bread was broken that they decided this stranger must be Jesus.

Even in the most compelling story, that of Thomas, at first when Jesus meets him, Thomas does not recognize him. It is only when Thomas sees marks of crucifixion that he decides it must be Jesus. And of course, that is just not necessarily true.

So you basically have people not really seeing Jesus, but inserting their desire to see a risen Jesus onto other people. This would account for the growth of the belief that J was risen from the dead.

You should re read those stories and notice that they are not really as you describe them.
The road to Emmaus story says they were kept from seeing Jesus and then at the end they recognised Him.
The Thomas story does not say that Thomas did not recognise Jesus when he saw Him.

 

[Brian2]

Big difference between "he" will come to you and "they" will come to you. Also, to make it about Baha'u'llah they have to make Teheran within the Assyria Empire. I looked at the maps, and it might be short of that part of Persia. It looks like it stops at the Zagros mountains. But, if it is the return of the exiles and captives, then that's a bigger issue. Again, it is taking some verses out of context to make them a fulfilled prophecy. What is the text saying?

In that respect the Baha'is do with the whole Bible what Christianity is accused of doing with the OT. There are big differences however imo when the texts that the Baha'is use are examined.

Wars and rumors of wars are still going on, so that's not fulfilled. The thing I keep asking is that when Jesus, or the "Lamb", comes back in Revelation, do the tribulations continue? I've also asked them about the "Lamb". That is who returns. The best guesses I've gotten from Baha'is is the "Lamb that was slain" was The Bab. But Baha'u'llah is the main guy. He should be the "Lamb". But everything in Revelation makes it sound like Jesus is the Lamb. Too many things left up in the air and not answered by Baha'u'llah or Abdul Baha.

That's what I mean, the Baha'is cannot offer any real interpretation. If Baha'i belief demands it then it has to be about Baha'i no matter what the text actually says.